Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 12, 2011 7:30pm-8:00pm PDT

7:30 pm
bayview hunters point since 1948, so, i know the community. i know when the lines was drawn, and when they were was drawn. and i said in the city planning book, and it has been there for years -- bayshore to the bay. it used to be armand street. thank you. i hope you do something about that. i will see if you take care of business for bayview hunters point and clear up my community. none of those fees have come before us been been -- a, forced. thank you very much. >> supervisors, i have the hot
7:31 pm
topics. -- 2 topics. the advocates who come here to testify, they come here for a purpose. they have been coming here a long time. some of us to deliberate fail to comprehend -- there was a time [unintelligible] people like espinola jackson, and through our legislation -- i am going to categorically state when you cross over the bay shore, this is exactly what you should do.
7:32 pm
this was done by a former supervisor to accommodate some of her cronies. this has to be fixed. secondly, i have an office at executive park, and as i stated before, i would love this project to go forward, but i would also like to bring your attention that this project should have gone forward five years ago. but are planning department sided with lennar and put this project on the back burner. d-e-a-d. which is good. we have decided to end the planning department and the planning commission, they have decided this project should go forward. so, let this project forward.
7:33 pm
i know again and gain -- again, this planning will have to come of for a land use, the planning department, the board of supervisors, and we will be there. but, to the people at home, this is one body, the land use body, if something is not done legally and is done illegally, it is like a lie, and the lies are repeated and repeated and repeated. and the lies become the truth. supervisors, you should know that if you are educated on the issues, if you really know how planning works, this is the process. last time i was listening to the
7:34 pm
deliberation and -- [chime] i want this to go forward, but the line should be adjudicated. supervisor mar: thank you very much. is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed even -- public comment is closed. can i just ask the city attorney to address the legal question, that perhaps the lines have been drawn a legally? i know, i think it is terrible when neighborhoods are bitter, such as hunters point. i would just ask for some rationale for how these will be impacting them. >> i just want to fine-tune what supervisor mar is asking.
7:35 pm
the developers developing executive park will have fees, and these fees will actually go toward projects in visitation valley. we're just trying to get clarification on how that happens. >> john lamott from the city attorney's office. the lines for visitation valley was a legislative matter. the determination that it was inappropriate area to have these collected and have this area be used -- so, it is entirely up to the board of supervisors as a policy as to where to set the boundaries.
7:36 pm
supervisor cohen: could you give me a recommendation on how we can correct this? since it was a previous legislative matter? for the record? >> you could make a request for a legislative amendment to the fee boundaries. and we would process it. we would processes with the city attorney's office and the planning department and it would go through the standard process, the planning commission, and ultimately the board. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor mar: so, my suggestion is we vote on the three items. hopefully supervisor cohen can engage members of the different neighborhoods, and potentially
7:37 pm
we could have an amendment to share the impacts and not to leave hunters point out in the cold, which the speakers employed, and also getting more of the historic context of may be why there is a rationale for this alley -- another neighborhood that has been neglected historic plea as well, they have tremendous needs as well. this needs to be considered on balance. i see no reason to hold up the legislation based on those items. was there any context that can be given from the planning department? >> hi, again. i was not involved in that myself. there's a lot of history i am not exactly aware of. i would like to make a couple points to -- i would like to make a couple points. circumstances change. issues change. we are talking about an impact fee boundary. named vis valley, primarily
7:38 pm
vis valley. the effort is to connect executive park to the surrounding neighborhoods. it is kind of in a corner, and it is under the tunnel, under the freeway. it is one of the primary moves were this is happening in project. supervisor mar: but now with the hunters point lennar development, it connects up more with hunters point? >> correct. that is correct. there is large growth potential happening behind the hill, all that will connect through this valley, which has its non-public improvement program, infrastructure, neighborhood amenities, etc., and that will be within the hunters point project.
7:39 pm
i think part of the issue, and this is going back to the timing of when that line was drawn, executive park was moving forward, and it was not a mechanism or place for impact and to put structure in place. independently to garner public benefits, community improvements. so, it was the seemingly logical thing. the feedback we have been getting is largely from folks back in vis valley. other types of books and been very active in this project. -- other types of folks have been very active in this project. to me, that would tell me why it is connected to the vis valley, because we do have impacts over in vis valley and we do not have
7:40 pm
the same kind of mechanism in terms of internalized impacts. i was not involved myself. but i imagine that would explain it. supervisor mar: thank you. i know the members from supervisor cohen's office could shed light on that. maybe we can convene a meeting to think of some and then that could move this forward. supervisor cohen: i would like to ask a quick question. correct me if i am wrong, but there is nothing in the legislation that requires the money go to visitation valley, right? this is merely an option? >> i would probably have to familiarize myself with the fee
7:41 pm
program, but usually there is a verification, and it is something that would be expanded again through legislation that could be modified to include additional things. i would remind the committee that whenever we have a nexus feethere needs to be a connecti. in connection demonstrated between the impact of a particular project and the program to which the fee revenues would be put. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, we have items four, five, and six before us. my understanding is it is not
7:42 pm
noticed for that. without objection, colleagues? thank you. thank you, everyone. can you please call item 7 and 8 together on the local hiring mou is san the teddy upcounty and the tolling agreement? >> the memorandum of understanding with san may take no county regarding local hiring for construction contracts. item eight, approving a tolling agreement with san mateo county. supervisor mar: thank you. we have a member of the office of oewd. >> i am from the office of economic and workforce development. thank you for the opportunity to be here today. our office is pleased that after about two months of conversations with our colleagues in san mateo county, that we have been able to enter into a reciprocity agreement for
7:43 pm
our local mandatory hiring program. the mou that is before you pour consideration is essentially expands the definition of -- that is before you act essentially expands the definition of projects to include residents of san mateo county, as well as san francisco residents, for that work. our current program for projects only in san mateo county, a contractor would be able to poll workers from either san francisco or san mateo county to meet the mandatory requirement. that is is essentially the mou. the tolling agreement was a request that the san mateo county had. our office, from a policy perspective, working with the city attorney's office, felt that making this tolling agreement with san mateo with respect to the local hiring legislation would not put us in a negative position, and it was
7:44 pm
a matter that san mateo county was quite interested in having. we felt that, from a policy perspective, it would not impact our ability to continue to move the program forward. it there is any questions, happy to answer, and i encourage your support. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, seeing no question, let's open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? ms. jackson. >> good afternoon. i am asking you to please pass on this, because it has been over a year now, almost two years, that we have worked on at this for local hiring here in san francisco. and there is going to be a meeting at 3:00 here at city hall to talk about giving an update on how the local hiring has been going. and that will be in room 278
7:45 pm
with avalos on june 22, so i am asking you to pass this. and thank god, we got it. thank you. supervisor cohen: if you can is replete that for the listeners at home. >> for the listening audience, it will be a 3:00 p.m., city hall, room 278. an update will be given on how local hiring has been going on since it has been approved by you, the board of supervisors. and i wanted to say, because i do not think that will get up here again, those of you that are watching and knew my brother, daniel young, he passed yesterday morning, and his body will be at lewis, and i think
7:46 pm
that funeral is on friday. daniel young was born and bred here in san francisco. his birthday was november 1956. that was my baby brother. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. i am sorry for your extended family. >> supervisors, you know that supervisor john avalos and some of you supervisors who are in favor of local hiring did a lot, maybe for the first time, to safeguard employment here in san francisco. and i have heard guillermo come over here and make some statements, but i would like that whatever this adjudication was done with assemblyman hill
7:47 pm
to whoever was part of the deliberation that this be put on the internet for us to know. we have many projects in that area, san mateo, linked with the sfpuc. and we will like to know how exactly we can address those projects. a lot of the projects suggest that puc, even though sfpuc is the lead agency and is headquartered in san francisco, when it comes to the projects in san mateo, we really do not have any guidelines now. we need to know from this deliberation what transpired. so it is good that it came to this meeting for the public at home and many of us who are involved with real work force, because we put people to work.
7:48 pm
we need to know the deliberations. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: i have a quick question for you. mr. da costa. i am curious, when you say what transpired, are you looking for a copy of the meeting? >> no, there is the head of the department, and he is saying that he met some people with san something. whatever they mutually agreed to represents the city. i am a constituent of the city and county of san francisco, but also, i am the director of environmental justice advocacy, and i am involved with work force, real work force. we have a hub where we have businesses, and we give them certification. then we see that they get a
7:49 pm
contract, and we see that young people work. but we want to do the proper way, and we want to understand, because we go to a jurisdiction like the san mateo and we will want to know what's -- i am reqs good that they met and came to
7:50 pm
some understanding, but i am saying, work force, generally, is very sensitive. thank you very much. >> man and ask him to come out, and maybe you can provide some answers to some of the questions that mr. da costa said specifically on what transpired. is there a resourced or meeting notes linked to a website? just provide us a little bit of transparency as to what happened and how the disagreement came about. >> the legislation that was passed for mandatory local hire created an opportunity for the city and county of san francisco to enter into reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions. the idea was that the construction industry, it is a
7:51 pm
regional industry. of the understanding that san francisco has many projects that are outside of our city limits, and we needed an opportunity to be able to share of the success of our local mandatory program with other jurisdictions where the work that san francisco was funding would funding -- would contact us. a reciprocity agreement was entered into. we looked at san mateo as the first pilot to try to enter into an agreement. the idea again, looking a major projects at sfo, certainly the puc activities. we have san bruno jail in san mateo county. given we have a significant construction footprint, there should be opportunities for san mateo resident to also benefit from san francisco's program. the concept of the reciprocity agreement was then put forward, really with the idea of taking
7:52 pm
the existing legislation and making it available to san mateo residents as well. a lot of the materials for how the program will work on construction projects, we have made available to the public at our website, oewd.org, and i will also be presenting at the meeting that was mentioned earlier, that the community advocates are pulling together to get an update. we will also share that information with them there. supervisor cohen: thank you. >> i did know that there were some inquiries with my office, and i had conversations with president chiu and supervisor avalos, as well. i wanted to thnak her for making sure there is a good relationship. is this going to open the door for alameda county, where a number of the puc projects, and potentially other counties, to try to negotiate with us also?
7:53 pm
>> from oewd's perspective, if the board approves the mou that is before you, we believe we now have a template to be able to work with other jurisdictions where, again, san francisco has a footprint in terms of our construction programs, and in turn, to reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions. supervisor mar: thank you. if there is no other public comment, public comment is closed. can we move items 7 and 8 without objection? the committee report for the meeting of the june 21, 2011, without objection? great, thank you. >> i need to return to the budget committee, so i ask to be excused. supervisor mar: without objections. >> thank you. supervisor mar: please call item number two, the hearing. thank you, everyone, for bearing with us so that supervisor wiener can get back to the budget committee meeting. >> item number two, a hearing
7:54 pm
on the muni's t-line. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor cohen: now we get to go to the fund's staff. colleagues, i have called this hearing, quite frankly, to discuss -- to have a frank discussion about this service reform and 40 muni t-line. it has been four years, and it is time we step back and evaluate the quality of service that it is providing. many of you know the challenges that we in the city experience in the first half of 2007, when the light was first opened. it is safe to say that the reliability has improved since those trying days, but there's still room for improvement. and muni is taking a proactive approach on these steps necessary to deliver an enhanced level of service. to that end, we have all made a significant investment in this
7:55 pm
line. the goal of improving access to the rest of the city, from our southeastern neighborhoods, is contingent upon the viability of this t-line. i look forward to an informative and thoughtful discussion today. we have staff and the public to evaluate the success at this point, which as been a major investment. i would like to ask staff to come up and make a presentation. i believe we have john from the mp -- from the mta is going to be presenting. sir, thank you. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to come here and talk about the t-line and the system, in general, and also, wanted to thank you in advance for your helping us focus with a set of questions and issues that we will try to address as we walked
7:56 pm
through this. if i may, i would like to just introduce a couple of my colleagues. i am john haley, the director of transit operations bitter i am joined by reginald mason -- i am joined by reginald mason, director of the safety, security, and training. and enforcement. and julie is our service planner and is also our expert on the transit effectiveness program. we have a member of our sustainable streets division. i thought it was important, as we go forward and talk about the t-line, while i will submit to you that it is an integral part of the rail system, the unique features that perhaps make the t-line a model for where we want to be with the rest of the system, one of those is the use of a signal priorities to help
7:57 pm
move the line along. we have our in-house expert on that. with that, if i may, we have put together a brief powerpoint, and feel free to stop me at any time. as i said, i want to touch on both the fact that the t-line is an integral part of our existing system, as well as it has its unique features and is the newest line. it was, we believe, well conceived in terms of giving a rail line the flexibility to do some of the things to help it stay on service. i am talking about the t-line high platforms and to the introduction of a signal prioritization. i would say briefly, i know both of you know the basic characteristics of the line, but it is important to point out that the line itself is the longest one in the rail system. a kind of breaks out into four
7:58 pm
distinct segments. if you start on the k part of it, what you'll see is the first part of the segment that goes to the west travels along in mixed traffic, by city college, along ocean avenue, highly congested. it moves very slowly. when you get to west portal, that is worthy k t-line blends with the rest of the rail lines as the go downtown. interestingly enough, to clear embarcadero, once again, you have the t-line blending with the n-line. it goes to 4th and king to serve caltrans and also for the special events. the last piece of the line, from downtown sunnyvale, is really the only part of it that is a straight pure t-line. so it is both, as i tried to say
7:59 pm
in the introduction, both a line that has some unique features, as well as being an integral part of the system itself. again, on that the characteristics of the line, on the next slide, we covered some of that. i just wanted to recap on here some of the important things about the line. supervisor mar: can i ask one quick question? so the central subway extension of the t-line as it is developed over the next couple of decades, or decade, how is that going to impact -- isn't that an extension of the t-line as well? >> no, if i may, mr. chairman, i would offer -- as it stands right now, i came to talk about the questions on the t-line itself. the central subway will have an impact on both the t-line and the whole system, and the impact b

132 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on